Bonds in service.
Why do companies take a bond at all, if the courts have ruled against these?
What are the auditors doing? What about company law Ministry and Labour dept?
The bonds are one-sided..in that the company can chuck you out but you cannot quit.
How do they arrive at a figure? have they got the bond language/terms okayed from the labour dept? This shd be made mandatory.
Training is to be given by the employer and this may be prescribed as one month. So one month's notice is OK.And periodic training is to be given to an employee to update him with new developments, this cannot be held against him because the employee must be equipped to do his job in the company. It is thus the responsiblity of the co. to provide training or updation.
An employee may be given one week's training and he may be asked to sign a bond for 2 or 10 years. Is it valid????
The employer cannot fix an arbitrary amount and so this must be scrutinised by a Govt official. And he must certify that he has applied his mind on this issue.
My son signed a bond with a Govt unit and it said 10 years.Amount was initially mentioned as Rs10 L but later o,n as Rs2 lakhs. He was not given any specialised training but given only 1 or 2 days refresher courses. These are periodically reqd as per the law . So this shd not be held against the employee. He cannot evade it. So why put the cost on him?
He went for specialised training and on resumption the govt unit refused to give him a suitable upgraded job...but expected him to continue for 10 years after resumption. They did not spend a single paise on his training. They sanctioned without pay leave. he gave 1 month's notice and met senior officials to relieve him. But nothing happened. He quit and joined a new company. After 2 years he has received a letter for Rs 2lakhs. Maybe a legal notice may follow.
And why shd one get a "no due cert" or relieving letter from the old employer to join a new office/unit.? This is a restrictive practice aimed to restrict an employees's fundamental right to get better jobs and improve his life. And how an anyone prevent his right to train for better jobs at his own expense?
This is inhuman and the courts have to come in heavily against the companies(incl govt depts and units). What are the trade unions doing in these companies. Just collecting membership fees and partying.
Shall be glad to have views from HR and Lawyers with case references.
From India, Mumbai
1Why do companies take a bond at all, if the courts have ruled against these?
What are the auditors doing? What about company law Ministry and Labour dept?
The bonds are one-sided..in that the company can chuck you out but you cannot quit.
How do they arrive at a figure? have they got the bond language/terms okayed from the labour dept? This shd be made mandatory.
Training is to be given by the employer and this may be prescribed as one month. So one month's notice is OK.And periodic training is to be given to an employee to update him with new developments, this cannot be held against him because the employee must be equipped to do his job in the company. It is thus the responsiblity of the co. to provide training or updation.
An employee may be given one week's training and he may be asked to sign a bond for 2 or 10 years. Is it valid????
The employer cannot fix an arbitrary amount and so this must be scrutinised by a Govt official. And he must certify that he has applied his mind on this issue.
My son signed a bond with a Govt unit and it said 10 years.Amount was initially mentioned as Rs10 L but later o,n as Rs2 lakhs. He was not given any specialised training but given only 1 or 2 days refresher courses. These are periodically reqd as per the law . So this shd not be held against the employee. He cannot evade it. So why put the cost on him?
He went for specialised training and on resumption the govt unit refused to give him a suitable upgraded job...but expected him to continue for 10 years after resumption. They did not spend a single paise on his training. They sanctioned without pay leave. he gave 1 month's notice and met senior officials to relieve him. But nothing happened. He quit and joined a new company. After 2 years he has received a letter for Rs 2lakhs. Maybe a legal notice may follow.
And why shd one get a "no due cert" or relieving letter from the old employer to join a new office/unit.? This is a restrictive practice aimed to restrict an employees's fundamental right to get better jobs and improve his life. And how an anyone prevent his right to train for better jobs at his own expense?
This is inhuman and the courts have to come in heavily against the companies(incl govt depts and units). What are the trade unions doing in these companies. Just collecting membership fees and partying.
Shall be glad to have views from HR and Lawyers with case references.
From India, Mumbai
Dear Friend, Kindly avail a copy of appointment letter & bond in order to understand terms & conditions.
From India, Pune
From India, Pune
Dear Sekar,
The query seems to be written in an emotionally desperate situation. But I suggest that one may analyse the cost of recruitment, training and maintenance of suitable manpower for any organisation, requirement of some common office decorum and service rules, continuity in the functions/operations of the organisation, etc. before raising the right to employment and blaming various authorities like labour department, trade unions, etc. Please enlist each issue involved in your message and monetise them from the angle of cost to the company for continuity and smooth functioning of its operations. You can find out the reasons for them yourself.
However, other members may also comment to elucidate the issues.
From India, Mumbai
The query seems to be written in an emotionally desperate situation. But I suggest that one may analyse the cost of recruitment, training and maintenance of suitable manpower for any organisation, requirement of some common office decorum and service rules, continuity in the functions/operations of the organisation, etc. before raising the right to employment and blaming various authorities like labour department, trade unions, etc. Please enlist each issue involved in your message and monetise them from the angle of cost to the company for continuity and smooth functioning of its operations. You can find out the reasons for them yourself.
However, other members may also comment to elucidate the issues.
From India, Mumbai
Dear friends,
The issue is one of the few ever green issues which are haunting both employer and employees alike. This is for the well known reason that nowadays attrition levels are so high especially in IT sector. One should understand the problems faced by these two involved. The employer has to worry about sudden vacuum created by the exit of trained employee and has to train another one in his/her place or reallocate to manage the situation. The cost & time for training and slippage in completion of the task/project on hand cannot be ignored. At the same time an employee has the right to mobility, subject to contractual obligations. Though courts have ruled against enforcing coercive clauses of the agreement, at the same time compliance of conditions re: notice period which have been agreed mutually cannot be overlooked. A compensation in lieu of the notice period is the right of employer under the same conditions as agreed. This is more particularly enforced in cases of 'specialised training'. In this context you might recollect the plight of now Delhi CM Mr.Arvind Kejriwal. Our friend should realise Trade Unions have little to do anything in the circumstances and Labour Dept. is no party to the conflict. Courts can see only natural justice is upheld in any matter comes before them and parties are covered under the Law of Contract rather than Fundamental Rights in this specific situation. Mr.Sekar should be lucky that they have scaled down the compensation to Rs.2 L nevertheless the employer should substantiate the levy of Rs.2 L. If our friends are serious about obtaining a formal relieving letter they should be open to mutual discussion and sorting out the issue between themselves in order to avoid complications & cost of litigation. This is opined on the limited infn.provided by the queriest.
From India, Bangalore
The issue is one of the few ever green issues which are haunting both employer and employees alike. This is for the well known reason that nowadays attrition levels are so high especially in IT sector. One should understand the problems faced by these two involved. The employer has to worry about sudden vacuum created by the exit of trained employee and has to train another one in his/her place or reallocate to manage the situation. The cost & time for training and slippage in completion of the task/project on hand cannot be ignored. At the same time an employee has the right to mobility, subject to contractual obligations. Though courts have ruled against enforcing coercive clauses of the agreement, at the same time compliance of conditions re: notice period which have been agreed mutually cannot be overlooked. A compensation in lieu of the notice period is the right of employer under the same conditions as agreed. This is more particularly enforced in cases of 'specialised training'. In this context you might recollect the plight of now Delhi CM Mr.Arvind Kejriwal. Our friend should realise Trade Unions have little to do anything in the circumstances and Labour Dept. is no party to the conflict. Courts can see only natural justice is upheld in any matter comes before them and parties are covered under the Law of Contract rather than Fundamental Rights in this specific situation. Mr.Sekar should be lucky that they have scaled down the compensation to Rs.2 L nevertheless the employer should substantiate the levy of Rs.2 L. If our friends are serious about obtaining a formal relieving letter they should be open to mutual discussion and sorting out the issue between themselves in order to avoid complications & cost of litigation. This is opined on the limited infn.provided by the queriest.
From India, Bangalore
Training Imparted is only an excuse given by the company.They have to train or else they can have their own colleges, so that they get a work-ready workforce.
And if they pay well and give good facilities, no worker would quit.
Kejriwal's case was different because he was on paid leave for 2 years. Govt (Inc Tax) demanded 9 L and he paid thru' well wishers.
Notice period is Ok but not training expenses.
Let companies not profit by inserting such clauses and compelling the unemployeds to sign on the dotted line.And training is an expense item.
This business of giving a resignation acceptance letter is a cartel arrangement designed by companies to restrain labour from seeking better avenues.This stranglehold has to be broken.
From India, Mumbai
And if they pay well and give good facilities, no worker would quit.
Kejriwal's case was different because he was on paid leave for 2 years. Govt (Inc Tax) demanded 9 L and he paid thru' well wishers.
Notice period is Ok but not training expenses.
Let companies not profit by inserting such clauses and compelling the unemployeds to sign on the dotted line.And training is an expense item.
This business of giving a resignation acceptance letter is a cartel arrangement designed by companies to restrain labour from seeking better avenues.This stranglehold has to be broken.
From India, Mumbai
Community Support and Knowledge-base on business, career and organisational prospects and issues - Register and Log In to CiteHR and post your query, download formats and be part of a fostered community of professionals.
Bonds in employment-nega tive covenant in contract of employment.pdf
Bonds.zip